A Livable Minimum Wage

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by scheherazade, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    there is an odd irony to the process of low income high breeding rates.

    when you ask a middle class family how much each child costs, that cost which can be easily found documented, is many times more than any low income working class family can afford.

    i wonder if anyone has bothered to look at the comparrisons to formulate an actual cost to a level that now affords a compulsory degree for the child.
    with all the social security required for the average family it appears that breeding has been priced out of the market for wage earners.
    oddly enough this is also quantified by growing coments of concern about a declining population of would-be employees.
    though i think the alarmist tones about a declining population of workers is more soo an issue of greed leveraging a unsustainable level of low wages.

    the tranistion to a modern technalogical normal suburban culture is very expensive.
    big corporates making massive amounts of profit may not be doing themselves any big favours unles they can find some way to put part of that profit back into the market to sustain their own models of profit margin.
    unles a mass decline(die off) in people is predicted and only those at the lowest and most expensive end of the scale.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    "percentage points"
    is this the american term for % ? or is "percentage points" a term for a codafied statistic inside that field ?

    millenials are the first generation who are unable to afford to buy a house even once they advance into a full time paid profesional.

    what they probably have not included which also makes the real figure much larger is, those middle class who have become poorer and moved into lower class or working class from middle class and by default are inelidgable to afford a house by profesional income level.

    that probably blows out the real percentage to be around 20%
    then you need to add on the inflation creep
    lowering of wages creep

    add in statistical variance for failed businessess, 80% in the first 2 years of opening(fail) as lost capital(more soo in countrys that do not have universal health care or proper social services like 3rd world democracys and the usa)

    you also need to factor in increasing cost of education with a shifting variance in expected qualifications.
    employers who leverage this against illegal migrants or migrants(note migrant not immigrant) who are non field profesionals this can be used by bad employers to leverage down the hourly rate to make migrants compete with locals to drive down wages.
    in a capitalist country such behaviour should be seen as treasonous as it directly undermines the local and state economy driving more and more employees onto the unemployment pile.

    i think a sea change is required
    a shift in perspective and culture around housing and the housing market.
    there must be some type of factored ecconomic recycling fiscal mechanism to off set the long term cost of lending against the ever decreasing wages.
    population is declining in many 1st world countrys as a direct attempt by society to counter the growing gap in cost of living.

    this should not be undermined.
    as the babyboomers move from their long term homes to more lesiure orientated compact low maintainance living, this should free up more houses and lower the cost as supply becomes more.

    unles the market is defrauded
    this increase in supply should be able to be "recycled" in a fiscal pay off to account for the loss of 25% in wages over the last decade.
    however, only government building and government leding schemes will be able to do that as private companys fail to minimise profits
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's a way of referring to a percentage when one means to talk about a subset of it. The writer thinks it's clearer to say nine percentage points of the twelve represents missing first time buyers than to say (for example) that 75% of a 12% decline is a shortfall rather than a loss.
    This language is common in financial writing - the lingo of basis points, percentage points, etc, probably derives from "decimal points".
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    thanks, i have seen on the news on occasion the comments about things moving a percentage point, however the percentage point was something like 1 tenth of a single percent.
    they say "it has moved 1 point"
    when the actual percentage moved is 0.01%
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Are you sure they called it a "percentage" point? Normally that would be a basis point, or just a "point", when the Wall Street guys are talking about rates and yields and commissions and fees.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    its all jumbled together.
    i only half listen to what they are saying and then do my own study into it if it sounds interesting.
    i never bothered to decode their variant languages knowing the american market has its own words etc.
    there is also industry language which almost codafies vernacularisms into market subjectivity inferences.

    i throw it all in a big toy box marked, jumble sale and move on.

    industry speak makes me loose my lunch on the whole with terms like "maximising your return for better future outcomes"
    when what they explicity mean is they are increasing their own fees to make you pay more for less and you need to make a choice about low much less you wish to have.

    they work with the decimal system and pretend to be in the language of mathamatics
    yet naming a percentage as a point is codafying the mathamatics to become jargon.
    so its nonsense.
    it is either a percentage or a point.
    a percentage point renders all mathamatics to be Ego centric.

    basis points have a name and it does not have "percentage" in it
    adding "percentage" in to "point" indicates your talking with idiots about their own egos.

    = codafying of scientific terms to become ego centric insular jargon.

    basis points have no baring on fee structure as a relative percentage variance as you may well know.

    throwing it all together to mix it all up requires pre-coding of jargon to become a semi scientific term.
    the more vague and technical they make it sound the more they can charge for doing nothing
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And another set of numbers, showing the focusing effect of increasing inequality: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...dominates-creates-mismatch-supply-demand.html
    When the wealth collects at the top, the investment and marketing and so forth will focus there as well.

    These guys seem to think the "market" will correct the situation, as demand for lower end housing will draw supply - but the "market" is set by the wealth, not the people. It doesn't matter how many people need lower end housing, it only matters how much money needs lower end housing. Demand is not people, in capitalism - it's money.

    Inequality of wealth is not necessarily self-correcting under capitalism. Great inequality of wealth can be a stable equilibrium.
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    as you point out, what seems to be breezed right past is the actual market.
    when the premis is "Let the market regulate the market"
    but the market doesnt choose when and how much money is invested into it, that part is people.
    and... the market doesnt decide who lives in the houses either or how much rent they pay, that to is decided by people.
    Capitalism doesnt exist without people, so it seems a little odd that people who wish to be considered sane and credible suggest the market should not be governed by people.
    it seems to be a game of which came first instead of attending to the actual utility process of the housing and working needs of the people.

    The irony in that proof is that the protagonists of pure capitalism with no regulation declare that those buying the houses or paying rent do not need to be doing so in collaboration with work.
    yet... what do the adverts for houses and rentals say ?
    close to shops, schools, transport etc...
    The product is advertised as an expected premium around making the dwelling a working partner with income generation and expense.
    announcing and delcaring that the market should not be concerned with the availibility of the housing to employment seems quite odd and at odds with the basic premis of a functioning mixed market ecconomy where housing & transport need to be partnered to maintain a profitable working ecconomy moving upward or atleast standing still.

    considering this, then examine the process of large scale housing developments with demanded kick backs from government for a percentage of lower costing houses...
    is the lower costing housing making the price come down or up ?
    regardles of the theory and best ideals, is the market changing the intended outcome ?
    does the last run on the availible houses create an inflation instead of a market stability because there is already a shortage in the market which is leaning on increasing demand with increasing value ?

    why does wages not follow the same value to income model if the market is self regulating ?
    surely wages should be going up considerably ?
    surely busines owners should be just as vocal about the massive unafforable increase in wages which can be seen along side the massive unafforable increase in housing ?
    is there a growing demand for higher paid employees ?
    or, in reality a growing demand for lower paid employees blowing out and labelled as a shortage in labour as the market has a race to the bottom to try and deliver goods and services to the falling income earner ?

    ... the stats are probably quite complicated.
    there might be a correlative % of how-much(critical minimum figure)low cost housing required to stabalise the market per total number of houses built dependant on the over all market, prices, inflation, employment, mean hourly rate. transport options and cost.
    at some point the market just keeps spinning out of control with increasing inflation fueled by various things.
    if the action of investment is always a last ditch effort, then it is fuelling the inflation end of the market, not the supply.
    the supply simply becomes a secondary means to the inflationary value.
    the only way that the money in the inflating house prices maintains its value, is if the majority of the population continue to lose money.
    this loss of money as a loss is the only thing validating the increasing inflation of the house price.

    this seems fairly obvious once you stop to consider the influencing mechanisms and effect of the maket on both ends of the process.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    More data for the discussion, including a side opinion on the guaranteed minimum income rather than (obviously inadequate) wage (a not so wonderful reason wealthy people often favor it):
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    A lefty take on the US wage stagnation - it appears that politics, not market economics, is behind it:
    And another mention:
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019

Share This Page